Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT

198 ITR 611High Court1992#2700 most cited

What is Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without proper application of mind is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, rendering it subject to revision under Section 263. A failure by the Assessing Officer to make due inquiry where circumstances call for it is a manifestation of such non-application of mind.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT · 198 ITR 611 · Section 263 · Section 263(1) · revision of assessment · erroneous and prejudicial · non-application of mind · lack of enquiry · failure to inquire · Assessing Officer investigator · Kerala High Court

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialnon-application of minderroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26speaking ordersection 143section 142(1)persontransfer

Judgments citing Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT

The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

…Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88(SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase "Prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue" is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the A.O. has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquiries then such assessment order passed by the A.O. was held to be erroneous. 9. In this regard it is mentioned that mere non enquiry would also re…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)…

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)…

Jaikishan Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 45/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)…

Reeta Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 44/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)…

Gopichand Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 43/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)…

Pravesh Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)…

Ritin Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 41/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)…

Kritika Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) Gee Vee Enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Cheettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Del) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) - CIT vs.Max India Ltd. 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT vs. Kwalaity Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) - CIT vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 343 ITR 161 (Bom) - CIT vs. Vikas Plymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) - CIT…

M/S Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 812/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Years: 2014-15

Section 115JSection 263Section 33A

…e an enquiry on a relevant issue/point would render the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue: (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 ITA No.812/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s Chengmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT,Cir-4(1), Kol. Page 4 CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (Sell CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT v. Hindust…

Nipha Exports Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 873/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…f the revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true, 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT reported in {2000} 243 ITR 83, 87- 88(SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase "Prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue" is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the A.O. has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquiries then such assessment order passed by the A.O. was held to be erroneous. 9. In this regard it is mentioned that mere non enquiry would also re…

M/S. Topgrain Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 M/S Top Grain V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, 7Th Management Pvt Ltd., Beriwala Building, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Floor, 1/1 Meridith Street, Bhawan,P-7, Kolkata-700 072 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaact 9889 K] Kolkat-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32

…t of the revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true. 8 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88(SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase "Prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue" is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the A.O has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquiries then such assessment order passed by the A.O. was held to be erroneous. 9 In this regard it is mentioned that mere non enquiry would also rende…

M/S. Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1332/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn0217F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Respondent By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Kolkata Dated 12.03.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Are In A Very Narrow Compass. The Assessing Officer Has Framed His Regular Assessment In Issue Dated 19.12.16 Disallowing Administrative Expenditure Of Rs.46,420/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) R.W. Section 14A Of The Act. The Pcit Assumed His Revision Jurisdiction Terming The Above Regular Assessment As Erroneous Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue Since There Were ‘Large Specific Domestic Transactions” & The Assessing Officer Had Completed His Assessment Without Making Any Reference To The Tpo To Determine Arm’S Length Price Thereof. He Quotes Cbdt Instruction No.3/2016 Dated 10.03.16 Regarding Guidelines For Implementation Of Transfer Pricing

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1332/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) AIC Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4th Floor, Kolkata – 700013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCN0217F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA Respondent by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2…

M/S. Chandni Commercials Pvt. Ltd., (Adhirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Since Merged), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2678/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2678/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chandni Commercials Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata Ltd.(Adhirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Since Merged) 9, Ezra Street, 1St Floor, Room No.23, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaeccc2811Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…e above position of the law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions including that of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), Malabar Industries Co. Ltd vs. CIT (1991) 198 ITR 611 (Kerala) which was affirmed by Supreme Court in 243 ITR 83. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to invoke provisions of Section 263, the assessment order of the AO ought to be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The twin conditions have to be satisfied s…

M/S. General Polytex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2211/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 M/S General Polytex Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ward-1(1), Aayakar International Commerce Bhawan, P-7, Centre (Icc), Near Chowringhee Kadiwala School, Ring Square,Kolkata-69 Road, Surat-395002 [Pan No.Ssvvb 5335 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radehy Shyam, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-09-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed In Case M.No.Pr.Cit-1/Kol/Revision U/S263/2017- 18/14797-14800, Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Issued Rpad Notice Dated 20.08.2019 For Today’S (09.09.2019) Hearing. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee To Decide The Instant Appeal On Merits. 2. Case File Suggests That The Assessing Officer Had Framed Assessment / Re-Assessment In Assessee’S Case In Issue Dated 28.01.2016 Invoking Sec.

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…f the revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase “Prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquiries then such assessment order passed by the AO was held to be erroneous. 9. In this regard it is mentioned that mere non enquiry would also render…

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

…of the revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the revenue” is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquiries then such assessment order passed by the AO was held to be erroneous. 9. The Assessing Officer failed to make relevant enquiry in this case. He…

Smt. Sefali Sarkar, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 17, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2464/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 263Section 273ASection 37(1)

…est of revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83,87-88 (SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the A.O. has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquiries then such assessment order passed by the A.O. was held to be erroneous. 9. In this regard, it is mentioned that mere non-enquiry would also ren…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Maharashtra Airport Pr. CIT-3, Development Company 612, 6th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AADCM9623M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sumit Lalchand…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-9, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Damadar Valley V/S. Dcit, Circle-9, Corporation, Dvc Towers Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (4Th Floor), Vip Chowringhee Square Road,Kolkata-54 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 0541 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.01.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Date30.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Md. Usman, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit Was Unjustified In Law In Holding The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Passed For The A.Y. 2012-13 To Be Erroneous In So Far As It Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…f the revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase “Prejudicial to ITA No.401/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Damodar Valley Corpn. Vs. DCIT, Cir-9 Kol. Page 8 the Interests of the Revenue” is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquiries then such assessment order passed by the AO was held to be er…

M/S Sadhana Stocks & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…e above position of the law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions including that of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (se), Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC). Malabar Industries Co. Ltd vs. CIT (1991) 198 ITR 611 (Kerala) which was affirmed by Supreme Court in 243 ITR 83. Assessment Year: 2012-2013 5. After having considered the position of law and facts and circumstances of the instant case, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is found to be erroneous and prejudicial of the interest of revenue because the assessment order has been passed and relief…